Alternative Education Committee Minutes

April 18, 2005

John Stanford Center

4:00 – 6:00 PM

Members present: Elaine Packard (Chair), Lynn Beebe, Rachel Bishop,

David Dockendorf, Michelle Euster, Kevin Geloff, Jim LaRiviere, David Marshak, Barbara Moore, Elaine Schmidt, Doug Selwyn, Cynthia Spencer,

Sheri Touissant, Mikala Woodward

Interns: Patrice DeLaOssa, Liz Savage, Adam Sher, Diane Solvang-Angell

Observers: Marian Neuhouser (parent, Nova)

Visit by School Board Director, Brita Butler-Wall

She thanked us for the work we are doing and encouraged us in our short-term and long-term goals. The School Board’s Executive Committee is eagerly awaiting our report. She encouraged the committee to look at things apart from the current budget crisis—to consider a series of recommendations on alternative education that will have great impact for the future. This is not an academic exercise that will sit on the shelf once completed. Our committee is creating something that will be given a lot of attention. Other committees are watching our work. Our recommendations will inspire action. This is a time for creative thinking.

1. Approval of March 28 Minutes:

2. Check-in/Reports from Members/Interns

• Pseudo-Alternative Checklist results: Members reported that the scoring system was problematic but that the survey elicited reflection and provided some clarity on the Best Practices. Those with whom the survey was shared found that the explanations of the Best Practices were more helpful than the checklist/survey itself.
• The Chair reminded the committee of several upcoming timelines and events. On April 20, the School Board will have its work session on the Superintendent’s recommendations on school closure/consolidation, student assignment, and transportation. She encouraged committee members to attend the work session and Board meeting. On June 15, our committee will present its final report to the School Board Executive Committee.
• The Chair reported on her contacts during the committee’s two-week hiatus. She spoke with School Board Director Lilly about alternative education. Most of his comments were communicated to the committee via email a week ago. She added two additional points: that he doesn’t believe that “choice” at the K-8 grade levels is an academic achievement issue; and, that “small” and “personalized” are not winning arguments.

During her presentation before the Board’s Executive committee (also reported to the committee via email a week ago), it was clarified that she reports directly to the Board and not to administration. She asked if all schools were asked for position statements regarding consolidation/closure or if the alternative schools were singled out for this request. The response seemed to be that the alternative schools were not singled out.

She spoke with the student assignment staff regarding assignment policies, especially about first-choice and mandatory assignments.

She spoke with a researcher at the Center for Re-Inventing Public Education at the University of Washington regarding her recent analysis of the costs of high schools in the Seattle School District. The analysis contained many “hidden” costs, such as central office budget dollars that contribute to a school’s budget. The results showed that many of the alternative high schools are well within a normal range of average cost/student.

She handed out a data analysis of all the alternative schools on 16 data points compiled from the District’s document, Data Profile: District Summary, December 2004.

• The committee member from AS#1 reported that the merger of AS#1, Summit and AEII was a rumor, but one that it was wise to be aware of in anticipation of the Superintendent’s recommendations on 4/20.
• As we proceed with our work, we need to state how alternative schools are different from traditional schools. However, it should not be in a way that lauds alternative education and criticizes traditional education.
• The Chair read from a national report that stated four critical best practices of alternative programs: choice, open enrollment, alternative assessment, and a democratic climate.
• The Chair presented a checklist of alternative assessment practices (that she assembled from national research, district documents and committee minutes) as a possible format for our operational definition of alternative education. There was much discussion about the advantages of a checklist versus a rubric. While a rubric is very desirable in the long run, at this point in time a checklist is more efficacious.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed to identify the Best Practices of alternative education before considering their individual characteristics.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed to describe the individual characteristics of each Best Practice with a checklist.

3. Discussion of the Best Practices

a. Best Practice: “Alternative Assessment”

· The discussion on this best practice was held at our previous meeting. During the committee’s two-week hiatus, members received additional documents via email on alternative assessment and grades. When the discussion was opened up, there was none and a vote was called.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed that “Alternative Assessment” is a best practice of alternative schools.

b. Best Practice: “Caring and Demanding Teachers”

· The discussion addressed school structures that generate longer-term student/teacher relationships through multi-year and/or multi-age groupings.

· What are the values of the school’s leadership? These values can have a school-wide impact on the school’s climate and culture.

· What effects do WASL and NCLB have on a school’s culture? What effect do District values have? How can a “caring” community be compromised by these influences?

· What do you do about what you care about?

· We support and nurture students’ capacity to be self-guided, self-monitored, and self-driven.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed to adopt this best practice, reworded as “Caring and Demanding Teachers Who Work in a Structure that Facilitates Learning and the Development of the Child.”

c. Best Practice: “Modifying Curriculum and Instruction”

· Multi-year relationships and looping make it possible to build on student knowledge.

· It may be increasingly difficult to modify curriculum especially with the district’s goal to align curriculum district-wide.

· “Individualization” is a practice that tailors curriculum to an individual student’s needs while meeting common learning outcomes.

· “Differentiation” is a practice that uses the same curriculum but tailors the instruction to an individual student’s needs.

· In an alternative school, integration of curriculum happens in a holistic and student-centered manner.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed to adopt this best practice, reworded as “Individualizing Curriculum and Differentiating Instruction.”

d. Best Practice: “A Caring School Climate”

· While there are many descriptors for a caring climate, an optimal school climate requires alignment and integration of best practices.

· Alternative schools are open and accessible with a high degree of processing and intentionality.

· Schools teach the “hidden” curriculum by how people relate with each other.

· Alternative schools are governed more by relationships than by rigid or prescriptive rules.

· There was concern that individualization, especially with disciplinary actions, should be implemented with equity in mind.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed to adopt this best practice, reworded as “A Deeply Caring and Respectful School Culture that Creates Community.”

e. Best Practice: “Clear Mission and Objectives”

Decision: By consensus, we adopted this best practice.

4. Handouts:

· Alternative Assessment, Elaine Packard via email

· Best Practices: New Standards for Teaching & Learning in American Schools

· Alternative Assessment, John Miner via email

· “Grades”, Rachel Bishop, via email

5. Future Action Steps

· The committee agreed that the Chair would work with Holly Ferguson to draft a School Board policy regarding alternative education.

· The committee agreed that the Chair could inform School Board Directors about the Best Practices that we have approved and use her best judgment about sharing details.

· Committee members agreed to continue their readings and exchange information they find of value with each other via email.

· At our next meeting, we will conclude our identification of Best Practices and start our discussion of policy recommendations.

· The Chair will work with others to identify a checklist of characteristics for each Best Practice.

6. Adjournment: 600 P.M.

Respectfully submitted, Diane Solvang-Angell, Committee Intern

Meeting Schedule: April 25, May 16, May 23.